A thousand times no.
Hell, death row in the US costs a fortune and has an average waiting time of over 10 years due to appeals. Appalling waste of money.
Is one innocent person wrongly convicted worth a hundred dead murderers?
Etc.

Thumb sprain and others...i clearly take your point about a wrongly convicted person...but....we need to balance that against the deterrent factor and lives potentially saved by the sentence of Death being a possibility.?

Therfore people deciding thats its not worth dying for and deciding to do something a little less fatal.

Just a thought and i realise this polarises opinion massively but its time we debated the topic fully on here...

'7 against and one for pretty quickly which seems to buck the perceived national trend/online petition.'

The online petition is not a measurement of anything in terms of comparing for/against. So it/s a load of ballcocks for you to imply otherwise.

The perceived national trend - which one is that, the one identified by the Mail, the Standard? There is no research to cite here.

But we do know that if you ask people questions about sentencing in more concrete, less abstract terms (e.g. relate the question to someone they know such as a neighbour) they are a lot less harsh in their views of what should be done with offenders then is generally reported by the press.

I'm sure if Rob could implement the death penalty for being a board gobshyte instead of asking pretty please can we just all be nice to each other he would have had a completely different reaction from Gay and Gayer

If you believe in capital punishment drag your arse off to Texas. They have a governor who who is looking at the Republican nomination next year who believes that homosexuals are in the same boat as murderers. A man who has been flagged up by the UN because of this. Capital punishment is murder.

what gives one human being the right to take the life of another hunman being,then walk free from prison after X ammount of years.if someone killed one of my family, i would be prepared to pull the lever or flick the switch.whether or not it's a deterrent is immaterial,if they were dead the wouldn't have the capacity to do it again.just my opinion.

I think a couple of people need to look up the word Rehabilitation. And read a review of the Norwegian prison system and its rates of recidivism. Big words I know guys, but stick with it rather than knee jerking back to the death penalty.

yes but only for serial killers, mass murderers and child killers.
does anyone think this norwegian bloke deserves to be looked after for the rest of his life after deliberately taking the lives of 70+ young people.

"what gives one human being the right to take the life of another hunman being,then walk free from prison after X ammount of years.if someone killed one of my family, i would be prepared to pull the lever or flick the switch.whether or not it's a deterrent is immaterial,if they were dead the wouldn't have the capacity to do it again.just my opinion."

Their freedom has been taken away from them...for life, that, I believe, is the worst punishment for any person.

"Thumb sprain and others...i clearly take your point about a wrongly convicted person...but....we need to balance that against the deterrent factor and lives potentially saved by the sentence of Death being a possibility.?"

Would you be ok for a close relative of yours to be wrongly executed if it meant that lives had potentially been saved thanks to their execution?

This is simple - its a no.
It is not a deterrent (read the evidence... people do not believe they will be caught).
You can ge the wrong person (even today).
It is in humane
It satisfies nothing other than revenge.
Apart from that...........

To those using the terrible Norwegian events as an example of pro death penalty views, maybe you should think of following the example of the Norwegian people themselves and their prime minister, who are dead against it and reacted with great dignity.

Going by your sentencing a rapist would be better off hedging his bets and killing his victim. That way she can't report and identify him and if he ever is captured the punishment will be the same anyway.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes and that is a Yes from me. Oh and in case you think l may be dithering it is a resounding Yes from me.
Not saying it is a deterrent but it will sure prevent some sick fcukers from re offending.
So to sum up from me its a resounding Yes.

First of all....it has to be noted all systems are imperfect, so there is no clinical solution within systems were arguments are so subjective.

But......it has to be understood that the primary focus of the criminal justice system is 'public protection'.......so the sentencing for crimes - such as child murderers should be reflective of the need to protect the public in the context of 'justice.......I agree sentencing at times is light.

So here we go.......fundamentally the death penalty will not increase public protection and here is why....

The threshold for conviction is....'beyond reasonable doubt'......

Now as we are all experts......sitting on a jury isn't a role to take lightly and the judicial system is adversarial....so outcomes are dependent on many factors but ultimately on the skills of barristers.

So.....the dcision for jurors isn't always straightforward.....if the decision of guilty would mean a lengthy custodial stretch then it is more likely to get a conviction. If the guilty verdict means death.....that's a difficult decision especially if there are doubts....

So there is a strong argument that the death penalty will lead to acquittals.

As it stands it is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt.....the death penalty WILL raise that threshold and lead to less convictions....

There is a fundamental difference between committing a crime a being found guilty for that crime.....the death penalty will mean that more people who have committed a crime will be found not guilty because the death penalty will raise the threshold for being 'guilty'

......this does not protect the public....it might satisfy the moral outrage held against child killers etc....but it doesn't safeguard society from the killers were evidence isn't conclusive and they WILL walk free

At present the acquittal rate for serious crimes lies between. 60-70% in most rates......the death penalty will increase this.....and being acquitted may in the eyes of the law mean 'not guilty....it doesn't always mean the accused didn't commit the crime.

So.....it's a NO from me because the death penalty does not work......

Or and before anyone says.....what about when evidence is conclusive.....there have been many miscarriages of justice where when the accused have looked 'guilty as sin when found guilty only for it to be overturned later!

That's exactly my point mickgaz....everyone when found guilty appears to be guilty.....but actually some are innocent....therefore it just isn't possible to distinguish the difference for obvious reasons.

So....the threshold for 'beyond reasonable doubt WILL rise and this is to satisfy the burning desire to kill evil people and to kill the few will potentially lead to guilty people being free because evidence is less conclusive. Then potentially they will commit more crimes!

Viv - 'you took the words right out of my mouth' (won't recite the next line)

Luf - 'the primary focus of the criminal justice system is 'public protection'

No it's not. Else it would be called the 'public protection system'. Its primary 'focus' (by which i take you to mean purpose) is supposed to be to ensure justice (whatever that might be) is dished out. Having said that, i agree with you broadly, but better - in my mind - to oppose the death penalty on principal grounds rather than on grounds of effectiveness (to reduce serious crimes).

Just my personal opinion, but I think I'd rather be put to death painlessly than live in a cell with some abusing XXXXXX for the rest of my life. Unless I was the abusing XXXXXX of course.

Imprisoning creatures who appreciate freedom is just as barbaric, which is why there are fewer zoos these days.

Also, there's almost certainly some deterrent effect. Just that some parts of the US are so violent they have loads of murders. And whether the deterrent is more effective than life imprisonment I'm not sure.

Check the stats and you'll find both the highest and lowest murder rates are in states with the death penalty.

There's less likelihood of murder in states that are more affluent.

The reason the death penalty is not a good idea is because the criminal justice systems are simply not efficient enough at finding the truth. The courts are not interested in the truth, they're interested in gaining a conviction - especially if it looks good in the media.

'It took Angel Nieves Diaz 34 minutes to die from the time the two executioners inserted the IV tubes into each arm and began pumping the chemicals into his body. His eyes widened. His head rolled. He appeared to speak. "It was my observation that he was in pain," Neal Dupree, a lawyer for Diaz and a witness to the execution, wrote in an affidavit. The faint signs of movement from the body strapped to the trolley continued for 24 minutes. "His face was contorted, and he grimaced on several occasions. His Adam's apple bobbed up and down continually, and his jaw was clenched."
Diaz's execution in Florida on December 13 for the murder of the manager of a topless bar was the last in the state for some months to come. Almost immediately after his body was removed from the execution chamber, it became clear that the execution had gone wrong.'

I'm gonna take the anti Godwin award for - An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Ghandi. And king, sorry, was at work so late to reply, but how do you think I would feel about a family member being wrongly killed by the state when I clearly abhor anyone being killed by the state?

'Thumb sprain and others...i clearly take your point about a wrongly convicted person...but....we need to balance that against the deterrent factor and lives potentially saved by the sentence of Death being a possibility.?'

typed a hell of a long reply but it disappeared, so to summarise in the words of JRR Tolkein
"many that live deserve death, and many that die deserve life, do you have the power to give it to them.... do not be too quick to deal out death and justice, even the very wise can not see all ends." word wizard mutha fukka

And as I said right at the start, death row costs more for the duration than life prisoners, due to appeals and conditions. Read before spouting. And simply, if the death penalty worked so well, why did we give it up? Maybe we grew up, as a people.

Ruth Ellis was the last female to be hanged in the UK for murder. She would not have suffered that fate in modern times as it would have been viewed more as a crime of passion as she was constantly abused by Blakeley.

The incriminating words, “It was obvious that when I shot him I intended to kill him”, were her downfall.

The death penalty sentence is unsound in many cases, irreversible and should never be brought back to statute.

Im genuinely surprised that there are so many people who feel its not the way forward.

It is genuinely food for thought with some great quotes etc..Enjoyed the read.

However i still would vote Yes...There are some people who forefit their right to occupy the planet by horrifically depriving another of that same right.

Particularly child killers...

The soham girls is a prime example.

Imagine the terrifying last moments of those 2 little girls done to them by a twisted piece of humanity if you can call him that.

He deserves to die...Snuffed out...never again to taint the face of our planet...

It is simply unbelievable that society will pay something like 500 to 600 thousand pounds to keep Huntley caged for a long time...with his playstation..papers...nice meals..tv etc..makes my stomach turn...

I am happy to refine my original thoughts though... and narrow it down to purely child murderers.

On refelction i think that seems right but great debate none the less.

It's a strange argument to point out that prisoners get access to things like TVs and games consoles whilst completely ignoring the fact that first of all they are locked in one place for most of their lives and secondly (especially in the case of the likes of Huntley) their life is made complete hell by other inmates and they live in constant fear.

This is often brought up as if it's a meaningful statement. Of course people who suffer personal loss would have an extreme reaction. That doesn't make their reaction right or the basis for the law of the country.

"This is often brought up as if it's a meaningful statement. Of course people who suffer personal loss would have an extreme reaction. That doesn't make their reaction right or the basis for the law of the country."

Absolutely true. I have no doubt that if (god forbid) a member of someone's family was raped, the reaction would be wanting to kill the perpetrator. Does this mean rape should carry a death sentence?